A document can operate as a valid acknowledgment of a debt under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, even if accompanied by a refusal to pay directly.

1. This second appeal raises limitation. The main facts are not in dispute. 3 and the father of the second plaintiff sold the suit property to one Chidambara Pathan and his brother Vaithyalinga Pathan, by a sale-deed dated the 16th October, 1911, and as on the said date the second plaintiff was a minor, a sum of Rs. 800 was retained with the vendees to be paid either on the second plaintiff attaining majority or on the vendors giving security. On the said date a mortgage-deed was executed by both Vaithyalinga Pathan and Chidambara Pathan in favour of the first plaintiff and the father of the second plaintiff for Rs. 800 securing that amount. The recital as regards payment under the said mortgage is to this effect:

We will pay you the said sum of Rs. 800 without any objection together with interest at 11 as. per cent, per mensem at any time whenever you demand us to pay after giving security for the sum.

2. On the 19th December, 1915, the vendees appear to have usuf ructuarily mortgaged the said property to one Kandaswami Pillai by a deed in and by which it was stipulated that the usufructuary mortgagee should pay the said sum of Rs. 800 secured by the mortgage as aforesaid in accordance with the directions contained therein. In August, 1916, a demand appears to have been made by the mortgagees to pay the amount due under the mortgage dated the 16th October, 1911. In answer thereto Vaithyalinga Pathan and Chidambara Pathan gave ajeply dated the 3rd October, 1916, to the effect that they had arranged for the payment of the mortgage amount with the usufructuary mortgagee under the mortgage-deed dated the 19th December, 1915. This suit was filed on the 31st March, 1928, to enforce the mortgage dated the 16th October, 1911.

3. In the plaint the reply notice dated the 3rd October, 1916, which is marked as Ex. C in the case is relied on for the purpose of saving limitation. Ex. C is in the following terms:

On 19th December, 1915, we have usufructuarily mortgaged our lands to one Darasuram Kandaswami Nayanakkar, and we have therein directed that after giving security to him for minors share you should receive the amount of principal and interest due in respect of the mortgage executed in favour of both of you. It is a mistake that you have given me this notice on Nala year Ani 9th without receiving the said amount from him. Since we have directed on 19th December, 1915, in the abovesaid manner, please take notice that we will not be liable for any Court costs or damages as claimed by you in your notice.

4. Both the lower Courts came to the conclusion that there was no acknowledgment of liability in Ex. C and that therefore the suit was barred. It is contended before me in second appeal that that view is wrong. I think the contention must prevail. Under Section 19 of the Limitation Act the words relied on, in order to constitute a valid acknowledgment, must be such as to show an existing jural relationship of debtor and creditor. From Ex. C it is clear that there is an admission of a debt due and payable under the mortgage which would prima facie import an acknowledgment of liability. It is not denied that there is an admission of liability, but what is contended is, that the concluding portion of the letter makes it clear that the mortgagors repudiated their liability. I am unable to agree with this view. There is nothing in the document which amounts to a repudiation of liability or to a statement that the mortgagors would never discharge the debt. Reading the document as a whole, what the mortgagors say is this:

No doubt there is an amount due and payable under the mortgage; but we have arranged for payment with Kandaswami Pillai and it is your (mortgagees) primary duty to apply to that Kandaswami Pillai for payment and if without recourse to him you file a suit, we would not be liable either for costs or any loss incurred by an unnecessary action.

5. There is therefore an admission of a present debt but coupled with a refusal to p